I partly agree. I uses AI several times now, and to my experience its very fast and reasonable writing hundreds of DTOs/entities. They are withouit typos and created much faster then a human could it. But if I ask him a question about architecture (for instance how to avoid race conditions, or how to implekmenet a role concept), the answers are a bit common sense. If I then tell him something like 'Wouldn't it be smarter when I do it this way?', it immediately agrees and does it 'this' way. So, my 5 cents: AI is good for routine work, but if it comes to intuition and experience, the human is still better.

yes Experience is something that is better than continuous training on same data A AI need training over 10000 times just be average at playing chess while humans need few hundred time because do teach things that continuous training can't

Social media, prediction markets, politicians, stock markets are all clearly selling on hopes and fears.

When you can't easily quantify and point to the benefits, that's the default and it works.

Not to say the industries mentioned don't have legitimate purposes, but yes it's pretty obvious a large part of the AI industry has joined its peers in selling fear, though they would never admit that.

People are getting fomo of .com bubble they think just like .com bubble we need to build something in AI bubble to meet expectations

That's such an outlandish idea! What made you suspect this? (sarcasm)

I do use AI but whenever I use it from third person view or diff POV ,it feels like very dumb to use